Equity - Estoppel - Real property - Representations by registered proprietor - Acted on to detriment - Whether registered proprietor estopped from asserting title

Limitation of Actions - Land - Title by possession - Whether tenant at will or licensee - Possession by licensee not adverse - Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 9

Limitation of Actions - Land - Title by possession - Joint tenancy - Whether adverse possession necessary - Licensee - Possession not adverse - Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 14
Paradise Beach Transportation Co Ltd v Price Robinson [1968] AC 1072 not followed

Limitation of Actions - Land - Title by sole receipt of profits - Joint tenancy - Profits received by consent of other joint tenant - No legal right to sole receipt of profits - No right to sole title created - Limitation Act 1935(WA) s 14

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 5, s 9, s 14

Result:

Defendant's claim to have acquired sole legal and beneficial ownership of plaintiff's interests in three pieces of land dismissed.

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr C B Edmonds
First Defendant             :     Mr R I Viner QC & Mr K E Yin
Second Defendant         :     Mr R I Viner QC & Mr K E Yin

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Paynes
First Defendant             :     Frank Unmack & Cullen
Second Defendant         :     Frank Unmack & Cullen

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Attorney-General (HK) v Humphrey's Estate (Queen's Gardens) Ltd [1987] AC 114
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162
Caltex Properties Limited (in liq) v Love and Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 970237; 11 May 1997
Cobb v Lane [1952] 1 All ER 1199
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179
Culley v Doe d Taylerson (1840) 11 AD & EL 1008
Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 31 LJ Ch 658
Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290
G Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809
General Discounts Pty Ltd v Crosby [1968] Qd R 418
Ghilarducci v Ghilarducci (1993) 134 ANZ Conv R 331
Ghilarducci v Ghilarducci, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920365; 15 July 1992
Goldsworthy Mining Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1973) 128 CLR 199
Grant v Edwards (1986) 3 WLR 114
Greasley v Cooke (1980) 1 WLR 1306
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343
Guimelli v Guimelli [1999] HCA 10
Hardwick v Johnson [1978] 1 WLR 683
Heslop v Burns [1974] 1 WLR 1241
Hill v O'Brien (1938) 61 CLR 96
Hughes v Griffin [1969] 1 WLR 23
Jones v Jones (1977)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Radonich v Radonich

Details

AGLC: Radonich v Radonich [1999] WASC 165
Case: [1999] WASC 165
Decision Date: 13 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Radonich v Radonich involved a dispute over the ownership of real property between the parties. The issue before the court was whether the registered proprietor of the property could be estopped from asserting title due to representations made and acted upon by the other party. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) applied to the case, particularly in relation to the concept of adverse possession by a tenant at will or a licensee. The case also addressed whether the possession by a licensee could be considered adverse, and if the limitation period applied to a joint tenancy where profits were received by consent of the other joint tenant.

The court examined the principles of estoppel and the effect of representations by the registered proprietor, concluding that if such representations were made and acted upon to the detriment of the other party, the registered proprietor could be estopped from asserting title. The court further analysed the applicability of the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA), specifically s 9 and s 14, to determine whether the possession by a tenant at will or a licensee could be considered adverse. The court held that possession by a licensee, when not adverse, did not trigger the limitation period. The court also clarified that under a joint tenancy, profits received by consent of the other joint tenant did not create a legal right to sole receipt of profits or a sole right to title, and thus did not activate the limitation period as per s 14 of the Limitation Act 1935 (WA).

The court ruled that the registered proprietor was estopped from asserting title due to the representations made and the other party's reliance on those representations. The limitation period under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) did not apply in this case because the possession by the licensee was not adverse. The court clarified that the decision in Paradise Beach Transportation Co Ltd v Price Robinson [1968] AC 1072 was not followed, as the circumstances did not support the creation of a right to sole title based on the receipt of profits by consent of the other joint tenant. The final orders of the court were that the registered proprietor was estopped from asserting title, and the limitation period did not apply to the case.

Orders